harrypotterfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Mathilda Grimblehawk
Potions Doesn't everyone attend Potions class? Or is it intended to refer to NEWT level classes?--Rodolphus (talk) 08:47, August 4, 2017 (UTC) She attended Potions class when required to, but never particularly enjoyed it and didn't take a NEWT in the subject (much to Gethsemane's dismay).MurrayL (talk) 09:00, August 4, 2017 (UTC) "Verifiable source" The existence of the character Mathilda Grimblehawk in and by itself is all the verification you need. -.-' Maester Martin (talk) 22:39, December 21, 2018 (UTC) :No, it is not. All facts presented in the article must be adequately sourced. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 22:41, December 21, 2018 (UTC) Odd, I don't see the fact that Snape is labeled as a "man" being sourced anywhere? Maester Martin (talk) 22:56, December 21, 2018 (UTC) We don't know the requirements for a Beast division career. Hagrid bacame a teacher without graduating, Newt got a Ministry job and may have been expelled. For all we know, Mathilda could have become interested in Magizoology later in life, and studied on her own. --Rodolphus (talk) 23:11, December 21, 2018 (UTC) :Thanks, Rodolphus. I see Maester Martin is being sardonic so I don't see the point in taking this further. Cheers. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 00:46, December 22, 2018 (UTC) With respect, you are making it kind of difficult not to be, Seth. Hagrid had no academic ''qualifications, but Dumbledore knew Hagrid's many years as Groundskeeper and experiences attending to matters in the Forbidden Forest meant that for all intents and purposes, he was qualified, because he was knowledable and would obviously be able to handle any magical creature his classes would learn about. So Dumbledore gave him a free pass because it was Hagrid. As for Newt, he ''definitively ''expelled, even if you don't necessarily want to acknowledge it, because suddenly a movie prop is equal to Rowling. Newt, however, was expelled after his fifth year, so he had his O.W.L.s, which made him qualified for a low-ranking job that allowed him to work his way up. So both of those are invalid. Hagrid because it's a special case, and Newt because his expulsion was inconsequential to his prospects of getting a job. We don't know in ''detail ''what ''all ''the recquirements are for the Beast division, but we know that studying magical creatures recquired for working in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures for the same reason we know you have to have studied Potions to be a Potioneer. You quite literally can't have one without the other, because otherwise, how the heck would anyone hire them for a job that their employers can demonstrate that they had neither the wits or skills to do by looking at their report card? Maester Martin (talk) 02:46, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :That's all very well; any source? How are we to know, even if we ''assume to know what the necessary qualifications are (because we don't) that Mathilda's was not a special case? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 03:22, December 22, 2018 (UTC) First off, the fact that she works in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creature is the source. As I just explained, you can't hae one without the other for obvious reasons. To answer the second part of the question, because Dumbledore being Dumbledore have the opportunity to make special cases, the government, is a whole different can of worms. Special cases aren't made where the security of the magical world is concerned. Maester Martin (talk) 03:30, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :No it isn't. The fact that she works in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures proves only that... she works in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. It's a complete non-sequitur. :As for the second part — source? The Ministry did just the thing following the Battle of Hogwarts, in the Auror Office. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 03:49, December 22, 2018 (UTC) #And in order to get that job, to work there, she must be qualified for it. #A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn't follow logically from the previous statement. The fact that someone wouldn't employ someone for a job they aren't qualified for, doesn't qualify as such. #Out of necessity, not on a whim. And please note the only ones to whom this "special case" was granted was people who had a) had first-hand experience in open warfare, which most qualified Aurors don't even have and b) have already fought the specific enemy the Ministry was pursuing before. Maester Martin (talk) 04:09, December 22, 2018 (UTC) ::We are not told what the necessary qualifications are. We are not told if the Ministry did not have a necessity of workers at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. We are not told if Grimblehawk some other kind of experience or eligibility. We are not told anything at all. Stop trying to draw conclusions from lack of evidence to the contrary, sheesh. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 04:20, December 22, 2018 (UTC) Correction: We aren't given specific ''information about what the necessary qualifications are, but we know the gist of it, because Rowling's universe is designed to mirror ours so we can understand how it works, and in our world, as is the case in the wizarding world, which is established through the existence of wizarding school system and the fact that you can get an education and that that education can, depending on your marks, quaifiy you for this or that job, and that's just how it works. It's not speculation, it's an understanding of reality that you seem bent on rejecting because it doesn't satisfy your own, subjective standard for "sources". Also - if Grimblehawk had some other kind of experience or eligibility, we'd know. Creators of fiction don't seek to decieve their audience unless it's a red herring put specifically for plot reasons, as I've pointed out before. I mean, I'm gonna drop this if you instruct me to, since you run the joint and all, but that won't mean I am ''actually, magicaly drawing conclusion from lack of evidence regardless. Because I'm not. Maester Martin (talk) 05:16, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :Oh, not this again. I don't run the joint, and you are indeed drawing conclusions from lack of evidence; "if Grimblehawk had some other kind of experience or eligibility, we'd know" is the definition of that. :That said, I'm not willing to have this conversation for the n-th time. You just can't be serious talking about a "subjective standard for sources"; I'm starting to find it very hard to take this as a good-faith discussion. So, kindly provide canonical backing for your claim, or there's not any point in continuing this conversation. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 07:44, December 22, 2018 (UTC) Although I'll readily agree that sources are very important, Seth - you want them from everything, including that which is glaringly self-evident and that Rowling never troubled to elaborate on because the answer itself is rather obvious. If I told you tomorrow that Gilderoy Lockhart's childhood home was located on the outskirts of the village of Upper Flagley in Yorkshire, from where his mother would walk every day to work at the St. Oswald’s Home for Old Witches and Wizards and where his Muggle father had turned their old wine cellar to a small private detective's office, making the process of hiding the truth of what his wife and Gilderoy was from neighboring Muggles much more difficult than it had to be.due to their frequent visits. He would sometimes get visits from former Minister for Magic Hector Fawey, who was his maternal grandfather and, while he had a strained relationship with Gilderoy's mother because she married a Muggle, adored Gilderoy, and Hector's flamboyance became something of an inspiration to Gilderoy, and that's part of the reason why Gilderoy are so fond of flashy attires and are so thunderously jovial in his adult life. Then - my good sir, I'd absolutely agree that I would have to provide a source. However, if I just told you Gilderoy Lockhart had a ''childhood home, the keyword wouldn't be "source", the keyword would be a polite equivalent of "duh". Maester Martin (talk) 15:29, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :I thought I already established that it is ''not glaringly self-evident. And, what's worse, not mentioned anywhere. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 16:25, December 22, 2018 (UTC) Well, you asserted that it wasn't glaringly self-evident, at least. Do you need to study alchemy to be an alchemist? Maester Martin (talk) 17:10, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :I'd argue that no, you don't need formal schooling to become an alchemist, the same way Zygmunt Budge didn't need a N.E.W.T. to become one of the most accomplished Potioneers ever. But that is quite beside the point at any rate — is it ever said in canon that Mathilda Grimblehawk picked Care of Magical Creatures in her third year? That's what we're discussing; and it's increasingly evident that the answer is no. And unless there is, there's not much point in continuing this conversation, to be frank. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 17:47, December 22, 2018 (UTC) I didn't say anything about formal schooling, I said "study". Like, reading a book and learning things, or learning by having an alchemist tell you about alchemy and taking notes. Her employment in the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures is in and by itself an indirect confirmation that Mathilda Grimblehawk picked Care of Magical Creatures in her third year, because if she didn't, she wouldn't have the necessary qualifications to join the department in the first place. Just like saying Theseus Scamander is the Head of the Auror Office is an indirect confirmaiton of him getting good marks in school and completing the Auror training program, because if he didn't, he wouldn't be qualified to be an Auror, let alone Head Auror, and he wouldn't have held the position. Maester Martin (talk) 17:58, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :It would be confirmation if we knew what the necessary qualifications were... -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 18:17, December 22, 2018 (UTC) Care of Magical Creatures, there's one... Maester Martin (talk) 18:50, December 22, 2018 (UTC). :Which is mentioned to be a necessary qualification where? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 18:56, December 22, 2018 (UTC) In the name of the department itself? Maester Martin (talk) 19:09, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :It's not called "Department for the Employment of People who Chose Care of Magical Creatures as an Elective in Their Third Year at Hogwarts", now, is it? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 19:36, December 22, 2018 (UTC) Nor is hospitals called "The Place Where People With A Medical Degree Work To Treat Sick And/Or Injured People" either, and still, you know doctors who work there do ''have a medical degree, or they wouldn't work there, now would they? (And I'm talking about the medical staff, not the janitorial one). Maester Martin (talk) 20:41, December 22, 2018 (UTC) :Certainly. And that'a very good example: we happen to know the job requirements to become a Healer (a N.E.W.T. of at least an E in Herbology, Transfiguration, Potions, Charms, and D.A.D.A.) since that's in , chapter 29. You know, a proper, verifiable, referenceable canon source. :At any rate, since this discussion seems to be taking us nowhere, I'm going to leave it at that. Unless, of course, you present a valid reference. Best. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 21:20, December 22, 2018 (UTC) There are numerous examples in the books of inept and incompetent witches and wizards holding high profile positions in the Ministry... particularly under Fudge’s administration. Fudge himself was woefully ill equipped to be Minister for Magic, yet he became so as a result of circumstance. Assume nothing, no matter how obvious it may seem to you. - C. R. Dyer (talk) 19:22, December 23, 2018 (UTC) The problem with that example, mate, is that the job of Minister for Magic is an elected position. Look at the US, with Trump. You can be elected into a position of leadership without having any qualifications at all, and that is, ultimately, different from getting hired ''to do a job, where you have to be deemed qualified for it by an employee. Same goes for Umbrdige: She was handed things by corrupt policitians who couldn't care less if she was qualified to serve as a gorified office assistant up at Level One or not, as long as she was (or appeared to be) a sufficently big psycophant. Which, likewise, is different from applying for a job and being found capable of doing it competently by an employer who's a veteran in the field in question. Maester Martin (talk) 21:10, December 23, 2018 (UTC) :And how do you know that Mathilda wasn’t hired as a personal favour? Her favourite uncle Bert might be head of the department for all we know. Or she might be sleeping with her boss... or any number of other possibilities. - C. R. Dyer (talk) 21:46, December 23, 2018 (UTC) The difference between fiction and real life is that there are no such variables until such time that they have been established. That means, she has an uncle named Bert, he worked in the same department back in the day, and that's it. There are no "maybe" this or "maybe" that. A fictional story is like a blank page waiting to be filled out, and nothing exist within it until it has been added by the artist. Seth, however, appear to disagree with this. But to answer your question more straight forward: Because if she was offered the job as a favour, she'd be dead long before the events of the game ever took place, and whoever employed her would more likely than not be behind bars. Her job isn't to run around serving coffee, it's to hunt down creatures that poses a risk to Wizarding Secrecy. ''Dangerous ''creatures, that it takes a particular set of skills and a specific expertise to deal with. Maester Martin (talk) 22:52, December 23, 2018 (UTC) :Seth disagrees with that because he likes to point out that assuming something is true because there is no evidence to the contrary is faulty logic. Go figure. (It is also wrong to assume everyone who is unfairly given advantage over others is necessarily inept, but I digress.) :At any rate, prolonging this discussion further is very much beating a dead horse — unless, of course, any references are provided. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper' ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 18:48, December 25, 2018 (UTC) Since my argument in no shape or form falls under the category of an appeal to ignorance fallacy, we should have no problem on that score, now should we? I'm dealing with the one type of logical absolutes that's actually applicable to fiction like Harry Potter: By that, I mean that I know that, at the least, an O.W.L. in COMC is a necessary qualify for a job in the Department of the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures the same way I know that whenever a new character wave their wand/hand and something happens, they cast some kind of spell, even if it hasn't been specified that that is what they do. The same way I know that whenever a new concoction with special properties and/or effects are brewed in a cauldron, we call it a potion. You are basically questioning how I can possibly know that an O.W.L. and/or N.E.W.T. in Charms is necessary to join the Committee on Experimental Charms, or how I can possibly know that a certain expertise in the field of Transfiguration is recquired to get your article approved for pubication in Transfiguration Today. It's, with all due respect, absurd. And I'm genuinely convinced that if you some day, somehow, managed to dig yourself out of that ditch you have gotten stuck in wherein fiction is treated like non-fiction, then the actual facts of the matter would've been as plain to see for you as they are for me... Maester Martin (talk) 03:06, December 26, 2018 (UTC) :Until then, let's consider canon only that which has been established in canon, shall we? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 03:14, December 26, 2018 (UTC) If by "consider canon only that which has been established in canon" is another way of saying we ought to ignore all aspects of canon that is so plainly obivious and glaringly self-evident that Rowling never troubled to elaborate on it because she knew better than treating the fans of her universe like idiots, then - sure, let's say "established" ... Maester Martin (talk) 05:30, December 26, 2018 (UTC)